The essence and content of an individual political process is determined based on the characteristics of the political system and the political regime under consideration. Thus, a democratic system corresponds to a type of political process in which citizens have broad rights in governing the state, in the state itself, human and civil rights and freedoms are observed and ensured. On the contrary, in a totalitarian type of political system, the political process completely excludes any real opportunity for citizens to participate in the political life of society, just as there is no freedom of political and social choice.

According to its structure, "the political process consists of subjects, carriers of political action and an object - a goal that must be achieved." The political process also includes means, methods, resources and executors.

Types of subjects of the political process:

In addition to the subjects of political activity, there are also its participants. These can be social groups, individual individuals, various organizations, etc. The difference between the participants and the subjects of political activity is that the former do not have certain political goals and interests, perhaps they do not even want to interfere in political activity, but due to certain circumstances they may be "drawn" into the political process.

The political process consists of both purposeful "conscious efforts of subjects of political activity (individuals, social groups, political parties, government agencies, etc.), and as a result of interactions that arise spontaneously, regardless of the will and consciousness of the participants in the process." G. T. Tavadov notes::

Such a set of purposeful and spontaneous actions of subjects and participants in the political process excludes any clear predestination or doom of the political process in the development of events and phenomena. As a result, it can turn out according to the well-known saying: "We wanted the best, it turned out as always."

During the implementation of their role tasks and positions, participants and subjects of the political process must show their "significance, ability to reproduce, develop, change or destroy elements of the political system." Hence, thanks to the political process, “both superficial and deep changes occurring in the political system, characterizes its transition from one state to another,” are revealed.

Structurally, the political process is based on several stages, which are gradually being implemented, while internally all the time they remain connected with each other and repeat themselves cyclically.

Stages of the political process

The stages of the political process are divided into:

• Constitution, formation of the political system;
• Reproduction of the components and features of a given system;
• Adoption and implementation of political and administrative decisions;
• Control over the functioning and direction of development of the political system.

The main stages of the political process express the dynamics of the development of the political system, as a result of which changes and transformations take place in it. Therefore, in each new cycle, the political system does not copy itself, but having enriched itself with new aspects and properties (for example, the emergence of an electoral system or new legislation, political blocs, parties, etc.), political changes take place in it. But the main process is the repetition in a new way of what existed before - self-reproduction.

At the stage of reproduction the political system is repeated and consolidated, the historical type of the political system, its class nature, and connections with other subsystems of society are modified and renewed. Reproduced political relations and institutions, political norms and values, symbols, language. The participants in the political process themselves are reproduced as spokesmen for certain political positions, bearers of the corresponding views, performers of certain political roles.

1. The concept of the political process and its structure

2. Stages of the political process

3. Typology of political processes

4. Features of the political process in the Republic of Belarus

1. Often a political process is simply understood as politics, opposed to any other sphere of public life. However, such an idea gives little for understanding the essence of the political process.

In Western political science, there are many approaches to understanding the political process. Let's name the main ones:

· institutionalism(representatives M. Duverger, S. Huntington and others) connects the political process with the functioning and transformation of institutions of power;

· behaviorism (representatives G. Lasswell, J. Kathleen and others) considers the political process as the behavior and activities of people aimed at the conquest and use of power for personal and public purposes;

· structural functionalism(representatives G. Almond, T. Parsons, etc.) understands the political process as a result of the aggregate functioning of the entire political system and its individual elements, the transition of the political system from one state to another. The source of changes in the political process is the impact, the requirements of the social environment. D. Easton, who stood at the origins of the systemic methodology in political science, interprets the political process as a set of reactions of the political system to the challenges of its environment in order to form acceptable solutions;

· conflict approach (representatives R. Dahrendorf, K. Boulding and others) presents the political process as a process of rivalry between the subjects of politics on various political issues. The result of this struggle is a change in the balance of power in the political arena, the emergence of new political subjects, etc. R. Dahrendorf, for example, focuses on the dynamics of group rivalry for status and power resources.

Political process - This is the aggregate activity of social subjects (individuals, groups, classes, communities), through which the formation, transformation and functioning of the political system of society takes place. In other words, the political process is a dynamic characteristic of the political system, the aggregate activity of all subjects of politics. If the political system is a kind of static concept that covers the state of political life at a given moment, then the political process reflects the dynamics of the political system, its internal and external changes, the transition from one state to another. With regard to society as a whole, the political process reveals the interaction of social and political structures and relations.

The political process has an internal corresponding to its content. structure, which includes the following elements:

1) the subject of the process, i.e. bearer of real power;

2) the object to be created or achieved as the goal of the process;

3) means, resources, methods, methods that the subject uses to achieve the goal.

The resources of the political process can be its material and ideal foundations: technical and financial means, science, knowledge, the mood of the masses (participants in the process), their ideology, public opinion and other factors.

2. The following are highlighted stages of the political process:

1) The mode of formation of the political system (constitution).This stage usually coincides with a turning point in the life of society, when the legitimacy of the power of some political forces is lost and the dominant position is taken by other forces. They create a new political system with other political institutions, legal norms (updated or new constitution). The formation of a new political system (constitution) is not a one-time act. Legitimization, i.e. the recognition of this system is a long-term process, smoothly flowing into the second stage of the political process.

2) mode of operation.Coincides with a stable period of development of society. In this case, political processes reflect the reproduction and maintenance of the activities of already existing authorities, political parties, public organizations, relations between them. Traditions and continuity in the interaction of participants in political processes are priority over any innovations. In democratic states, the means of such support are elections and the appointment of government bodies, congresses and conferences of political parties and public organizations, etc. Reproduction of the traditions of the political system itself is carried out by clarification, updating of the existing legislation, while maintaining the traditions laid down earlier.

3) mode development ... Comes in a period of a certain reshuffle of political forces. There is a partial change in government bodies, reform of the activities of political parties and public institutions in accordance with changes in the social structure of society and the balance of political forces within the country and in the international arena. At the stage of development, the formation of a new political elite can be observed, whose interests do not coincide with the given political system. The next stage is coming.

4) stage of decomposition, decline... It coincides with the rise of new social forces that are focusing attention on other forms of political life. This political dynamic is negative in relation to the existing style of government. Destructive tendencies prevail over constructive ones. The ruling elite before this is losing management ability, and so on. and their legitimacy. Thus, one cycle of the political process ends, while the process itself continues (seasons of the year, the concept of Toinby civilizations). The new cycle begins with the renewal of political leadership, political institutions and the political system as a whole.

1. Essence and types of political processes

1.1. The concept of the political process.

Characterization of politics as a process, i.e. the procedural approach allows us to see the special facets of the interaction of subjects regarding state power. However, due to the fact that the scale of the political process coincides with the entire political sphere, some scholars identify it either with politics in general (R. Dawes), or with the entire set of behavioral actions of the subjects of power, changes in their statuses and influences (C. Marriam ). Supporters of the institutional approach associate the political process with the functioning and transformation of institutions of power (S. Huntington). D. Easton understands it as a set of reactions of the political system to the challenges of the environment. R. Dahrendorf emphasizes the dynamics of group rivalry for statuses and resources of power, while J. Mannheim and R. Rich interpret it as a complex set of events that determines the nature of the activities of state institutions and their impact on society.

All these approaches in one way or another characterize the most important sources, states and forms of the political process. However, their most significant differences from other fundamental interpretations of the world of politics are that they reveal the constant variability of various features and characteristics of political phenomena.Focusing on the approaches considered, we can assume that the political process is a set of all dynamic changes in behavior and relations of subjects, in their roles and functioning of institutions, as well as in all in elements of the political space, carried out under the influence of external and internal factors. In other words, the category “political process” captures and reveals the real one from the states of political objects, which is formed both in accordance with the conscious intentions of the subjects, and as a result of various spontaneous influences. In this sense, the political process excludes any predestination or predetermination in the development of events and focuses on practical modifications of phenomena. Thus, the political process reveals the movement, dynamics, evolution of political phenomena, a specific change in their states in time and space.

By virtue of this interpretation of the political process, its central characteristic is change, which means any modification of the structure and functions, institutions and forms, constant and variable features, rates of evolution and other parameters of political phenomena. Changes mean a transformation of properties that do not affect the basic structures and mechanisms of power (for example, leaders, governments, individual institutions can change, but the leading values, norms, ways of exercising power remain in the same quality), and the modification of carriers, basic elements, which together contribute to the achievement of a new qualitative state by the system.

In science, there are many ideas about the sources, mechanisms and forms of changes. For example, Marx saw the main reasons for political dynamics in the influence of economic relations, Pareto associated them with the circulation of elites, Weber - with the activities of a charismatic leader, Parsons - with the performance of people in various roles, etc. However, conflict is most often cited as the main source of political change.

Conflict is one of the possible options for the interaction of political actors. However, due to the heterogeneity of society, which continuously generates people's dissatisfaction with their position, differences in views and other forms of inconsistency of positions, as a rule, it is the conflict that underlies changes in the behavior of groups and individuals, the transformation of power structures, development political processes. As a source of the political process, a conflict is a kind (and result) of the competitive interaction of two or more parties (groups, states, individuals), challenging each other for the distribution of powers or resources.

1.2. The structure and actors of the political process.

Some researchers believe that the political process is a spontaneous phenomenon of an irrational nature, depending on the will and character of people, primarily political leaders. The significance of random phenomena and events is especially noticeable at the micro level. However, the general nature of political activity as a goal achievement, as well as the institutional and other contexts of this activity (rules, certain forms and methods of behavior, traditions, dominant values, etc.) make the political process as a whole orderly and meaningful. It is a logically unfolding sequence of interactions between actors.

Thus, the political process is a holistic phenomenon that lends itself to structuring and scientific analysis. The unpredictability and seeming inexplicability of certain events should be considered mainly as a consequence of the imperfection of the scientific apparatus and instrument.

The structure of the political process can be described by analyzing the interaction between various political actors, as well as by identifying the dynamics (the main phases of the political process, the change of these phases, etc.) of this phenomenon. Clarification of the factors influencing the political process is also of great importance. Thus, the structure of the political process can be defined as a set of interactions between actors, as well as their logical sequence ("plot" of the political process). Each individual political process has its own structure and, accordingly, its own "plot". Actors, the totality of their interactions, sequence, dynamics or plot, time units of measurement, as well as factors influencing the political process, are usually called the parameters of the political process.

The main actors in the political process are political systems, political institutions (state, civil society, political parties, etc.), organized and non-organized groups of people, as well as individuals.

A political institution is a set of norms and rules reproduced over time, as well as organizational potential, which order political relations in a certain area of \u200b\u200bpolitical life.

The main power institution, one of the main actors in the political process, is the state. Another important actor in the political process is civil society, which can also be viewed as a political institution. It should be noted that the state and civil society as political actors are formed in Europe and the United States around the period of the New Age under the influence of the ongoing modernization changes. It was from this time that the main institution of power in society was formed, possessing a monopoly on coercive violence in a certain territory - the state. At the same time, under the influence of this process, a kind of antithesis of the state - civil society - is being formed.

Smaller actors in the political process are parties, interest groups, as well as individuals and groups of people.

Individuals and groups can participate in politics not only in an institutional form, for example by voting in elections, but also in non-institutional forms, in the form of spontaneous mass demonstrations.

People differ in varying degrees of political activity. Many are not very active, but in general they participate in most of the institutionalized processes. Some only observe from the outside, not only not taking an active part in political life, but also not participating in elections, not reading newspapers, etc. Others, usually a minority of citizens, on the contrary, take the most active part in political life.

To achieve group goals, individuals can create special groups that differ in varying degrees of institutionalization - from a random group formed at a rally to a highly organized, permanent and operating according to strict rules of a group of interests. The degree of institutionalization of political activity depends not only on the achievement of specific goals (as a rule, the more effective the higher the degree of institutionalization), but also on the reproducibility, repetition, regularity of any political relations, their consolidation in the rules and norms.

When analyzing the political process, one should take into account the nature of the interaction between its subjects. It is important to note here that the nature of interaction largely depends on the scale of the political process and actors. In particular, the nature of the interaction between the political system and the environment will be determined by the level of evolutionary development of the system and the environment, for example, by the degree of internal differentiation. At the same time, the nature of the interaction between actors, in particular between a citizen and a certain party, will be determined by other parameters: institutional conditions, peculiarities of party development, the place of the party in the political system, socio-psychological characteristics of development personalities, etc. In general, abstracting from the specifics of political processes and actors, most often the nature of the interaction between actors is described in terms of confrontation, neutrality, compromise, union, consensus.

Two groups of factors of the political process can be distinguished: "internal" and "external". The "external" includes the environment (socio-economic, sociocultural and other conditions) and its impact, systemic, but "external" for a given political process political circumstances, such as the rules and conditions of the political game, "external" political events etc. The “internal” parameters include such parameters as the characteristics of actors, their goals and intentions, the distribution of power resources, the logic and “plot” of the political process.

An important parameter of the political process is its division into stages. Various political processes provide an example of a combination of different stages. The diversity and uniformity of processes leads to the fact that it is rather difficult to identify any stages common to all types of processes. The stages of the functioning of the political system, the electoral process or the process of creating and functioning of a political party will be different. Therefore, the allocation of specific stages is advisable in relation to certain types of political processes.

Most of the interactions of political actors concern the exercise of public power. Due to this circumstance, the importance of the process of making and implementing political decisions is especially great. The analysis of this process is one of the most popular topics in foreign political science. There is no consensus among researchers regarding the number and content of its stages. Summarizing the various approaches, the following main phases can be distinguished:

Statement of the problem (collecting the necessary information about existing problems, public requests and possible solutions, identifying primary and secondary problems);

Formulation of alternative solutions;

Comparative analysis and selection of the most effective solution;

Formulation of a state decision and its legitimation (through the adoption of laws, voting, etc.);

Implementation of the decisions taken;

Monitoring the implementation and implementation of "feedback".

If we turn to the process of functioning of the entire political system, then the set of stages will differ significantly, since the interaction of the system with the environment will be taken into account. Along with that, the well-known attempts in science to highlight the main stages of this process are also focused on the adoption and implementation of managerial decisions. The "classic set" of phases is the allocation of the main stages by G. Almond and G. Powell:

1. Articulation of individual and group interests.

2. Aggregation of these interests (their unification in a single position).

3. Development of a political course.

4. Implementation of the adopted decisions.

5. Control over the implementation of these decisions.

It should be noted that this model reflects only one of the types of the political process and cannot be considered as universal.

1.3. Political changes and their types.

Political changes represent a specific type of social change, associated primarily with changes in the mechanism of power regulation of society. The political system under the influence of qualitative changes in the social environment is constantly in motion and development. In fact, there are no two identical to each other states of the same political system. Consequently, political changes are transformations of institutional structures, processes and goals that affect the distribution and exercise of powers to govern a developing society. Political changes can occur either by adjusting the system to the new requirements of the social environment, or by changing one system that is unable to preserve itself with another. Within a society, political change that has a broad and sustained impact on society can be defined as a revolution. A revolution is a radical type of political change, as a result of which the old political tradition is interrupted and a new political system is reproduced. IN XX century, the political process in Russia has repeatedly changed under the influence of revolutions. In 1905, twice in 1917 and in 1991, revolutionary changes took place in the political system of society, as a result of which state and political structures, processes and goals were transformed, affecting the distribution and administration of powers to govern Russian society. ...

Revolution as a type of political change should be distinguished from a coup d'etat. The latter is a sudden and non-constitutional change of the ruling elites, which itself, however, is not associated with any profound changes in social relations. Revolutions and coups d'etat do not represent the most common type of political change, although they always generate constant public interest. The most common type of change is the adaptation of the system to new requirements or changes in the social environment. This kind of change occurs constantly in any normally functioning political system. They can be associated with the redistribution of political influence within a given society, with the introduction of constitutional changes in the structure of power relations within the same political system, etc.

Conscious, systemic changes that have a broad and sustainable impact on society, but reproduce the previous political system, can be defined as reform. Reforms lead to a change in the state of social and political relations within the existing political system. Therefore, the most important characteristic of the political process is the method or mode of exercising political power (reproduction of the political system). The reform of political relations, which changes the constitutional and legal methods and ways of exercising political power within the framework of one political system, creates a certain political regime. Consequently, the concept of a political regime characterizes the political process from the point of view of the functioning and self-reproduction of a certain political system of a given society.

Depending on the choice of constant and variable characteristics of political changes in political science, two approaches have developed: contextual and institutionalist. The first approach is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bthe primary role of the social context, social environment, socio-economic, socio-cultural conditionality of political and institutional changes (R. Aron, R. Dahl, S. Lipset). The second approach focuses on the internal institutional structure of the political process. The nature and success of social change primarily depends on the level of political institutionalization. A wide variety of fluctuations in the social environment, economic crises and public actions are possible, but all in the end depends on the effectiveness and adaptive response of institutional mechanisms to manage society, maintain stability in it (S. Huntington, T. Skolpol, D. March).

The variety of sources and forms of political change is expressed in certain ways of existence of political phenomena, namely: functioning, development and decline.

Functioning political phenomena does not take the relationships, forms of behavior of citizens or the performance by the institutions of state power of their direct functions beyond the framework of the prevailing basic meanings. For example, at the level of society as a whole, this is a way of maintaining the existing political system, reproducing the balance of forces that reflects their basic relations, producing the main functions of structures and institutions, forms of interaction between the elite and the electorate, political parties and local governments, etc. With this method of change, tradition and continuity have an undeniable priority over any innovation.

The second way of political change is development. It characterizes such modifications of the basic parameters of political phenomena that imply a further positive character of the evolution of the latter. For example, on a social scale, development can mean such changes in which the state policy is brought to a level that allows the authorities to adequately respond to the challenges of the time, effectively manage public relations, and ensure that the social requirements of the population are met. This nature of political changes contributes to an increase in the correspondence of the political system to changes in other spheres of public life, improving its ability to apply flexible strategies and technologies of power, taking into account the complicating interests of various social groups and citizens.

And, finally, the third type of change is decline, which characterizes such a way of transforming the existing basic forms and relations, which presupposes a negative perspective of the evolution of a political phenomenon. According to P. Struve, decline is a "regressive metamorphosis" of politics. In a state of decline, political changes are characterized by an increase in entropy and a predominance of centrifugal tendencies over integration. Therefore, decline essentially means the collapse of the existing political integrity (for example, the fall of the political regime, the dissolution of the party, the seizure of the state by external forces, etc.). On a society-wide scale, such changes may indicate that the decisions taken by the regime are less and less helping it to effectively manage and regulate social relations, as a result of which the regime loses stability and legitimacy sufficient for its existence.

1.4. Features of political processes

Coinciding in scale with the entire political space, the political process extends not only to conventional (contractual, normative) changes that characterize behavioral actions, relations and mechanisms of competition for state power that meet the norms and rules of political games. Along with this, political processes also capture those changes that testify to the violation by the subjects of their role functions, fixed in the normative base, by them exceeding their powers, going beyond their political niches. Thus, the content of the political process also includes changes that take place in the activities of subjects that do not share generally accepted standards in relations with state power, for example, the activities of parties in an illegal position, terrorism, criminal acts of politicians in the sphere of power and etc.

Reflecting the actual, and not only the planned changes, political processes have a pronounced non-normative character, which is explained by the presence in the political space of various types of movement (wave, cyclical, linear, inversion, i.e., return, and others), which have their own forms and methods of transformation of political phenomena, the combination of which deprives the latter of strict certainty and stability.

From this point of view, the political process is a set of relatively independent, local transformations of the political activity of subjects (relations, institutions) that arise at the intersection of a wide variety of factors and whose parameters cannot be accurately determined, let alone predicted. At the same time, the political process characterizes the discrepancy of changes or the possibility of modifying some parameters of the phenomenon and at the same time preserving its other features and characteristics unchanged (for example, a change in the composition of the government can be combined with the preservation of the previous political course). The uniqueness and discreteness of changes excludes the possibility of extrapolation (transferring the meanings of modern facts to the future) of certain assessments of the political process, complicates political forecasting, sets limits to the foresight of political prospects.

At the same time, each type of political change has its own rhythm (cyclicity, repetition), a combination of stages and interactions of subjects, structures, institutions. For example, the electoral process is formed in connection with electoral cycles, therefore, the political activity of the population develops in accordance with the phases of nominating candidates for legislative or executive bodies of power, discussing their candidacies, electing and monitoring their activities. Decisions of ruling parties can set their own rhythm to political processes. In periods of qualitative reformation of public relations, the decisive influence on the nature of the functioning of state institutions and the methods of political participation of the population is exerted not by the decisions of the highest governing bodies, but by individual political events that change the alignment and balance of political forces. Military coups, international crises, natural disasters, etc. can set such a "ragged" rhythm to the political process.

Reflecting real, practically prevailing changes in political phenomena, the political process certainly includes in its content and appropriate technologies and procedures for action. In other words, the political process demonstrates the nature of the changes that is associated with the activities of a particular subject, who at one time or another and in one place or another, his usual methods and techniques of activity. Therefore, the use of different technologies for solving even homogeneous problems presupposes changes of different nature. Thus, without this technocratic link, political changes acquire an abstract character, losing their specificity and concrete historical form.

1.5. Typology of political processes

The manifestation of these features of the political process in various time and other conditions predetermines the emergence of its various types. So, from a substantive point of view, internal political and foreign political (international) processes are distinguished. They differ in a specific subject area, special ways of interaction of subjects, functioning of institutions, trends and patterns of development.

From the point of view of the significance for society of certain forms of political regulation of social relations, political processes can be divided into basic and peripheral. The first of them characterize those various changes in various areas of political life that relate to the modification of its basic, systemic properties. These include, for example, political participation, which characterizes the ways of including broad social strata in relations with the state, forms of transformation of the interests and demands of the population into managerial decisions, typical methods of forming political elites, etc. In the same sense, we can talk about the process of public administration (decision-making, legislative process, etc.), which determines the main directions of the purposeful use of the material strength of the state. At the same time, peripheral political processes express changes in areas that are not so significant for society. For example, they reveal the dynamics of the formation of individual political associations (parties, pressure groups, etc.), the development of local self-government, other ties and relations in the political system that do not have a fundamental impact on the dominant forms and methods of exercising power.

Political processes can reflect changes occurring in an explicit or latent form. For example, an explicit political process is characterized by the fact that the interests of groups and citizens are systematically revealed in their public claims to state power, which in turn makes the phase of preparation and adoption of managerial decisions accessible for public control. In contrast to the open, the hidden, shadow process is based on the activities of publicly not formalized political institutions and centers of power, as well as on the power claims of citizens, which are not expressed in the form of an appeal to the official government bodies.

Political processes are also divided into open and closed. The latter means the type of change that can be quite unambiguously assessed within the criteria of best / worst, desirable / undesirable, etc. Open processes demonstrate a type of change that does not allow us to assume which - positive or negative for the subject - the nature of the existing transformations or which of the possible strategies in the future is more preferable. For example, during the development of international crises or the reforming of transitional social relations, it is often impossible in principle to understand whether the actions performed by him are beneficial to the subject, how to generally assess the current situation, which alternatives to prefer in this regard, etc. In other words, this type of process characterizes changes occurring in extremely unclear and uncertain situations, which imply an increased hypothetical nature of both the performed and planned actions.

It is also important to subdivide political processes into stable and transitional ones. Stable political processes express a clearly defined direction of change, the predominance of a certain type of power relations, forms of power organization, which presuppose a stable reproduction of political relations even with the resistance of certain forces and tendencies. Outwardly, they may be characterized by the absence of wars, mass protests and other conflict situations that threaten to overthrow or change the ruling regime. In unstable processes, there is no clear predominance of certain basic properties of the organization of power, which exclude the possibility of qualitative identification of changes. In this sense, the exercise of power is carried out under conditions of both the disequilibrium of the influence of the main (economic, social, value, legal) prerequisites, and the imbalance of the political activity of the main subjects in the political space.

Attempts to typologize political processes on a civilizational basis are also presented in science. Thus, L. Pai singled out the "non-Western" type of political process, referring to its features the inclination of political parties to claim to express the worldview and represent the way of life; greater freedom of political leaders in determining the strategy and tactics of structures and institutions, the presence of sharp differences in the political orientations of generations; intensity of political discussions, weakly related to decision-making, etc.

L. Pai distinguished between Western and non-Western political processes. In the article "Non-Western Political Process", he formulates 17 points on which political processes in Western and non-Western societies differ.

1. In non-Western societies, there is no clear line between politics and the realm of social and personal relations.

2. Political parties tend to claim to express the worldview and represent the way of life.

3. The political process is dominated by cliques.

4. The nature of political orientation assumes that the leadership of political groupings has considerable freedom in determining strategy and tactics.

5. Opposition parties and power aspiring elites often act as revolutionary movements.

6. The political process is characterized by a lack of integration among the participants, which is a consequence of the lack of c. society of a unified communication system.

7. The political process is distinguished by a significant scale of recruiting new elements to perform political roles.

8. The political process is typically characterized by a sharp difference in the political orientations of generations.

9. Non-Western societies are characterized by little consensus on the legitimate ends and means of political action.

10. The intensity and breadth of political discussion has little to do with political decision-making.

11. A distinctive feature of the political process is a high degree of overlapping and interchangeability of roles.

12. In the political process, the influence of organized interest groups playing functionally specialized roles is weak.

13. The national leadership is forced to appeal to the people as a whole, without distinguishing between social groups in it.

14. The non-constructive nature of the non-Western political process forces leaders to hold more definite views in foreign rather than domestic policy.

15. Emotional and symbolic aspects of politics overshadow the search for solutions to specific issues and common problems.

16. The role of charismatic leaders is great.

17. The political process goes by basically without the participation of "political brokers".

2. Methodological approaches to the analysis of political processes

2.1. Institutional approach

The institutional approach to the analysis of political processes is one of the "oldest" methodological approaches. For quite a long time (until about the 30s of the 20th century), the institutional approach was one of the dominant methodological traditions in the USA and Great Britain. Its representatives paid the main attention to the study of a very important aspect of the political process - political institutions. At the same time, only institutions of a formal legal nature were subjected to analysis. Institutionalists studied the formal legal aspects of public administration, in particular, constitutional documents and the implementation of their provisions in practice.

Over time, institutionalism has undergone a significant evolution, the general trend of which was the perception of some of the principles of other methodological approaches. Within the framework of modern institutionalism, three main approaches are sometimes distinguished, each of which is characterized to one degree or another by this tendency: constitutional research, pub-lic administration (in Russian political science, it is most often translated as state and municipal government) and the so-called new institutionalism.

Constitutional studies that survived in the 70s. a significant rise, currently represented mainly in the UK. This trend has retained a combination of formal legal and liberal reformist approaches.

The main attention of constitutionalists is paid to changes in British politics, comparing the practice of constitutional agreements, etc. Despite the preservation of the traditional approach, constitutionalists try to avoid the former formalism in the study of institutions by analyzing "institutions in action", that is, how the goals and intentions of people are realized in institutions. In addition, the research of modern constitutionalists, to a greater extent in comparison with their predecessors, is based on generalizing theories.

Public administration representatives focus on studying the institutional conditions for public service. In addition to studying the formal aspects, as well as the history, structure, functions and "membership" in state governance structures, these scholars also analyze the issues of the effectiveness of the civil service. Combining the analysis of formal organization with behavioral aspects is also associated with the tasks of identifying the effectiveness of state structures. However, it is recognized that the study of behavioral aspects can yield fruitful results only when institutional conditions are taken into account.

The new institutionalism, in contrast to other trends, emphasizes a more independent role of political institutions in the political process. This direction also differs significantly from traditional institutionalism in that neoinstitutionalism has adopted a number of principles of other methodological approaches. It is distinguished from "classical" institutionalism, first of all, by a broader interpretation of the concept of "institution", close attention to the theory of development and the use of quantitative methods of analysis.

Neoinstitutionalists do not confine themselves to simple descriptions of institutions, but try to identify “independent variables” that determine policy and administrative behavior. In particular, much attention is paid to the study of the non-formal structure of political institutions, and attempts are made to supplement the analysis with a behavioral approach. So, for example, neoinstitutionalists are concerned about the question: does the form of government (parliamentary or presidential) influence the behavior of political actors or is it just a formal difference. Some neoinstitutionalists also focus on the performance of institutions.

The merit of the neoinstitutionalists is that thanks to him, one can talk about institutions from broader comparative positions. It provides researchers with an opportunity to find out whether the institutional dynamics of different regimes has more similarities with each other than it might seem from separate descriptions undertaken by scientists focused on the study of one country or even a region. The use of one of the variants of institutional analysis does not guarantee the success of such a comparison, but equips the scientist with the necessary set of tools for its implementation.

2.2. Behavioralism.

The so-called behavioral scientific-methodological direction was called upon to overcome the shortcomings of the normative and institutional approach. Its appearance is associated with a real revolution in the field of political research that took place in the 1930s. and changed their appearance. The main heyday of the bi-chevioral trend was in 1950-1960. the present century, when it occupied one of the leading positions in the social sciences.

The initiators and followers of the behavioral approach to the analysis of political processes were, first of all, representatives of the Chicago School of American Political Science. These are such scientists as B. Berelson, P. Lazersfeld, G. Lasswell, C. Merriam, L. White and others.

Representatives of the behavioral direction paid the main attention not to political institutions (for example, the state), but to the mechanisms of exercising power. The subject of their analysis was political behavior at the individual and socially-aggregated level (in groups, social institutions, etc.). Behavioralists came across numerous aspects of the political process related to political behavior, such as voting in elections, participation in various other forms of political activity, including non-conventional forms (demonstrations, strikes, etc. .), leadership, activities of interest groups and political parties and even subjects of international relations. Studying these various aspects, they tried to answer the question: why people in politics behave in a certain way.

In addition to the peculiarities of the subject of research, the hallmarks of behaviorism were also its basic methodological principles: the study of human behavior by observation and empirical verification of conclusions.

As D. Easton notes, “Behavioralists were much more inclined to theoretical research than their predecessors. The search for systematic explanations based on objective observation led to a change in the very concept of theory. In the past, theory has traditionally been philosophical. Her main problem was achieving a "decent life." Later, the theory acquired a predominantly historical coloring, and its purpose was to analyze the origin and development of political ideas of the past. Behavioralist theory was focused on empirical application and saw its task in helping us explain, understand and even, as far as possible, predict the political behavior of people and the functioning of political institutions. "

The need to test the hypothesis by examining all cases or their representative number led to the use of quantitative methods of analysis by behaviorists, such as statistical methods, modeling, questionnaire methods, observation method, etc. Largely thanks to the behaviorists, these methods are widely used in the framework of political science. Gradually, their application began to be considered by the representatives of this scientific approach as one of the main problems of science. There are special training courses, manuals, etc.

At the same time, behavioralism was not free from some shortcomings and controversial issues. Most often, this methodological direction was criticized for the following typical features that D. Easton singles out:

An attempt to distance oneself from political reality and abstract from the “special responsibility” for the practical application of knowledge, which is imposed by the occupation of professional science;

The concept of the scientific nature of the procedure and methods, which led the researcher away from studying the individual himself, the motives and mechanism of his choice ("internal" behavior) to the study of conditions that influence actions ("external" behavior of people). This could lead to the fact that political science will turn into a "subjectless and inhuman" discipline, in which the study of human intentions and goals takes a rather modest place;

- “the assumption that only behavioral political science is free from ideological premises”;

Inability to study the value aspects of political relations;

An indifferent attitude towards the emerging fragmentation of knowledge, despite the need to use it to solve a complex of social problems.

In addition, among the shortcomings of this approach, it is necessary to note the lack of a systematic view of political processes and ignorance of the historical and cultural context.

The noted shortcomings of behaviorism, its inability to provide answers to many questions of political life, to predict some political events caused a crisis in this direction and gave rise, according to D. Easton's apt remark, the so-called "post-behavioral revolution", which was marked by the emergence of some new methodological directions.

At the same time, some researchers continued to work in the behavioral tradition, trying to adapt the main provisions of this methodological approach to the dictates of the times. At the present time, "post-behavioral behaviorism" has the following characteristic features: recognition of the importance of not only those theories that are of empirical origin, but also of others, while maintaining the principle of verification; rejection of the principle of full verification, recognition of the importance of partial verification; lack of absolutization of techniques, admission of the use of qualitative methods of analysis and historical approach; recognition of the inevitability and importance of the value approach (the possibility of assessing the phenomenon under study).

2.3. Structural and functional analysis.

Another attempt to overcome the shortcomings of behavioralism was the development of a structural-functional approach.

Proponents of structural and functional analysis represent society as a system that includes stable elements, as well as ways of connections between these elements. These elements, as well as the ways of communication between them, form the structure of the system. Each of the elements performs a specific function, which is important to maintain the integrity of the system.

According to the structural-functional approach, society can be represented as a set of large elements (subsystems), as well as a set of separate positions occupied by individuals, and roles corresponding to these positions. The state and behavior of large elements and individuals is explained, first of all, by the needs for the performance of functions and roles. Therefore, the main task of the study, according to the representatives of this approach, is to identify the elements of the system, their functions and ways of communication between them.

T. Parsons is considered the founder of structural and functional analysis, who laid the foundation for a systemic view of the political process. T. Parsons identifies four major elements of society: economic, political, societal and cultural subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific function that is important to maintain the integrity of the system. The economic subsystem performs the function of adaptation to the environment external to society; political performs the function of achieving common goals for society; societal - the function of integration; cultural - the reproduction of cultural samples. In turn, each of the subsystems can also be represented as a system with corresponding characteristics.

The structural-functional approach was the basis for the creation of the theory of political systems, which paid great attention to the factors that determine the stability of the political system.

The main merits of this methodological approach are as follows. The emergence of theories of the political system and the structural-functional approach as a whole made possible the emergence of a theory based on the isolation of the universal components of the political process. Structural functionalism contributed to the inclusion of macroindicators and macrostructures in the sphere of analysis of the political process and the creation of a research tool suitable for scientific cross-national comparison. The emergence of this approach also favored a significant expansion of the scope of comparative research, which included, in particular, a large group of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (the countries of the "third world"). In addition, its appearance favorably affected the development of research into informal mechanisms of the functioning of the state and other political institutions.

At the same time, the structural-functional approach was not free from some shortcomings: insufficient attention was paid to the micro-level of analysis of political processes; the political behavior of people was viewed as a derivative of their functional status, the independence and activity of political actors, as well as the influence of social factors, were underestimated; insufficient attention was paid to the study of the causes and mechanisms of conflicts, which was the reason for the inability to explain conflict political processes (for example, wars and socio-political conflicts of the 60s.)

At the same time, the presence of undoubted advantages of structural functionalism determined that this methodological approach, in spite of what it experienced in the 60s and 70s. crisis, and to this day is widely used in the analysis of the political process. As practice shows, the best results are obtained by its application in combination with elements of other methodological approaches.

2.4. Sociological approach.

One of the approaches to the study of political processes that pay considerable attention to the analysis of the environment is the sociological approach. It involves analyzing the impact of social and sociocultural factors.

The influence of social and sociocultural factors can manifest itself not only in the characteristics of individual or group political actors in the form of interests, political attitudes, motives, ways of behavior, etc. This influence can also manifest itself in the form of the specifics of the "division" of labor in politics, the distribution of power resources, as well as the characteristics of individual political institutions. Social and sociocultural factors can also influence the structural characteristics of the political system. The social and sociocultural context largely determines the meanings (“meanings”) of certain actions, as well as the specifics of the plot of the political process. Therefore, the analysis of these factors is an integral part of the study of the political process.

As a rule, such an analysis is carried out within the framework of such a subdiscipline as political sociology. This subdiscipline of young political science and sociology, at the junction of which it appeared: its official recognition took place in the 50s. 20th century Often, prominent political scientists are also political sociologists. Among them are names such as S. Lipset,X ... Linz, J. Sartori, M. Kaase, R. Aron and many others. The specificity of this subdiscipline is that it is, as J. Sartori aptly put it, an "interdisciplinary hybrid" that uses social and political independent variables to explain political phenomena.

2.5. Rational choice theory.

The theory of rational choice was designed to overcome the shortcomings of behaviorism, structural-functional analysis and institutionalism, creating a theory of political behavior in which a person would act as an independent, active political actor, a theory that would allow looking at human behavior "from the inside" , taking into account the nature of his attitudes, the choice of optimal behavior, etc.

The theory of rational choice came to political science from economics. E. Downs (formulated the main provisions of the theory in his work The Economic Theory of Democracy), D. Black (introduced the concept of preferences into political science, described the mechanism of their translation into the results of activities) are considered the "founding fathers" of the theory of rational choice. ), G. Simon (substantiated the concept of limited rationality and demonstrated the possibility of using the para-digma of rational choice), as well as L. Shapley, M. Shubik, V. Riker, M. Olson, J. Buchanan, G. Tullock (developed "Game theory").

Supporters of the theory of rational choice proceed from the following methodological premises:

First, methodological individualism, that is, the recognition that social and political structures, politics and society as a whole are secondary to the individual. It is the individual who produces institutions and relations by his activity. Therefore, the interests of the individual are determined by him, as well as the order of preferences.

Secondly, the egoism of the individual, that is, his desire to maximize his own benefit. Supporters of the rational choice theory believe that the elector decides whether to come to the polls or not, depending on how he evaluates the benefits from his vote, also votes on the basis of rational considerations of benefits.

Third, the rationality of individuals, that is, their ability to arrange their preferences in accordance with their maximum benefit. As E. Downs wrote, "every time we talk about rational behavior, we mean rational behavior, initially directed towards selfish goals." In this case, the individual correlates the expected results and costs and, in an effort to maximize the result, tries to simultaneously minimize the costs.

Fourth, the exchange of activities. Individuals in society do not act alone, there is an interdependence of people's choices. The behavior of each individual is carried out in certain institutional conditions, that is, under the influence of the actions of institutions. These institutional conditions themselves are created by people, but the initial one is the consent of people to exchange activities. In the course of their activities, individuals rather than adapt to institutions, but try to change them in accordance with their interests. Institutions, in turn, can change the order of preferences, but this only means that the changed order turned out to be beneficial for political actors under the given conditions.

The disadvantages of this methodological approach are as follows: insufficient consideration of social and cultural-historical factors influencing the behavior of an individual; the admission of the supporters of this theory of the rationality of the behavior of individuals (often people act irrationally under the influence of short-term factors, under the influence of affect, guided, for example, by momentary pores).

Despite the noted shortcomings, the theory of rational choice has a number of advantages, which determine its great popularity. The first undoubted advantage lies in the fact that standard methods of scientific research are used here. The analyst formulates hypotheses or theorems based on the general theory. The analytical technique used by the proponents of the rational choice theory proposes the construction of theorems that include alternative hypotheses regarding the intentions of political subjects. Then the researcher subjects these hypotheses or theorems to empirical testing. If reality does not refute the theorem, that theorem or hypothesis is considered relevant. If the test results are unsuccessful, the researcher draws the appropriate conclusions and repeats the procedure again. The use of this technique allows the researcher to draw a conclusion about which human actions, institutional structures and the results of the exchange of activities will be most likely under certain conditions. Thus, the theory of rational choice solves the problem of verification of theoretical positions by testing the assumptions of scientists about the intentions of political actors.

The theory of rational choice has a fairly wide area of \u200b\u200bapplication. It is used to analyze the behavior of voters, parliamentary activity and the formation of coalitions, international relations, etc., and is widely used in modeling political processes.

2.6. Discourse approach

The foundations of the theory of political discourse were laid by representatives of the Cambridge and Oxford schools of thought in the 50s. XX century., Who analyzed the linguistic context of social thought. The first results of the study of political discourse were published in the serial edition of P. Laslett "Philosophy, Politics and Society", begun in 1956. In the 70s. the term "discourses" began to be widely used in the analysis of political processes. In the 80s. a center for semiotic research emerged, associated with the analysis of discourses. It concentrates around T. Van Dyck. Researchers at the center are beginning to pay attention not only to substantive aspects, but also to the technique of analyzing political discourse. From this point on, we can talk about the formation of an independent methodological approach to the analysis of political processes.

To study political discourse, representatives of this methodological direction widely use the methods of semiotic analysis (study of the discourse frame), as well as rhetoric and literary criticism (analysis of a specific discourse-work). The discourse-frame, as J. Pocock and K. Skinner put it, is a "generating system". The terms “language”, “ideology” are often used to denote this phenomenon; it is in this sense that they speak of the discourse of liberalism, conservatism, etc. The discourse-work has a certain plot, for example, the discourse of the 2000 presidential election.

The analysis of sign systems involves identifying the levels of their complexity. The simplest level is the dictionary, which is formed by a set of characters. This is the level of semantics. Further, a more complex construction arises when characters are combined using a code. This is a transition to the syntactic level. The rise to one more level is associated with the inclusion in the message of its subjects with their special intentions and expectations. This is the level of pragmatism. It is this level that is especially important for the analysis of discourse.

One of the most developed areas of analysis within the framework of this approach is the contextual analysis of the political discourse, or rather its individual components. As a result of such a contextual analysis, the features of the meanings of individual components of political discourse are revealed, which are formed under the influence of factors external to it (socio-economic, cultural and political conditions). At the same time, it is recognized that discourse is not a simple reflection of processes taking place in other areas of the social world, for example, in economics. It unites semantic elements and practices of all spheres of social life. The concept of articulation is used to explain the process of its construction. Unite, heterogeneous elements form a new structure, new meanings, a new sequence of meanings or discourse. For example, the Labor government, which came to power in England in the 1950s, built its program using various ideological components: the welfare state, the promises of universal employment, the Keynesian model of government, the nationalization of certain industries, support for entrepreneurship, cold war. This strategy was not just an expression of the interests of certain social strata of society, a response to changes in the economy; it was the result of the unification of various political, ideological and economic models, as a result of which a new discourse was constructed.

When analyzing a discourse-work, turning to the achievements of rhetoric and literary criticism presupposes, first of all, the use of methods related to the analysis of the plot. There are well-proven schemes and models here that allow one to present individual political events and processes (rally, electoral process, etc.) as a discourse with its own plot, meanings and other parameters and predict its development. Much attention is paid to the study of alternative plots based on a single initial model, as well as to the study of plots with open ends. This technique allows us to get good results when analyzing the political process as a dynamic characteristic of politics.

The practical application of discourse theory can be demonstrated by the example of the analysis of tetcherism (S. Hall). The tetcherism project consisted of two, largely mutually exclusive spheres of ideas and theories: these are elements of neoliberal ideology (the concepts of "personal interests", "monetarism", "competition" were articulated) and elements of conservative ideology ("nation", "family" , "Duty", "authority", "power", "traditions"). It was founded on the combination of free market politics and a strong state. Around the term "collectivism", which did not fit into the framework of this project, the ideologists of Tetcheriem built a whole chain of associations, which led to the emergence of social rejection of this concept. Collectivism in the mass consciousness began to be associated with socialism, stagnation, ineffective management, the power not of the state, but of the trade unions to the detriment of state interests. The result of this policy was the introduction of the idea that social institutions, built in accordance with the ideologue of "collectivism", are responsible for the crisis in the economy and prolonged stagnation in society. Thatcherism became associated with individual freedoms and personal entrepreneurship, the moral and political rejuvenation of British society, and the restoration of law and order.

One of the directions of the analysis of political discourse is the postmodern approach. It is impossible not to mention postmodernism in discourse analysis due to the fact that this direction is becoming more widespread in the social sciences, including in political science, and is considered one of the "fashionable" directions of social and political analysis. Let us dwell briefly on its characteristics.

When analyzing political discourse, postmodernists proceed from the following premises. They deny the possibility of the existence of a single and shared image of reality, which can be accurately studied and explained. The world around us is created by the beliefs and behavior of people. As ideas spread, people begin to believe in them and act on them. Being fixed in certain rules, norms, institutions and mechanisms of social control, these ideas thereby create reality.

Most representatives of this direction believe that meanings must be sought not in the surrounding external world, but only in language, which is a mechanism for creating and broadcasting individual ideas. Therefore, the study of language is declared the main task of science. The need to understand how the formation and construction of objects of reality is proclaimed; the only way to achieve this goal is the interpretation of language through the text. According to representatives of the postmodern trend, to understand the discourse, it is enough to analyze only the text itself.

Thus, within the framework of postmodernism, there is no complete analysis of political discourse, since only the subjective meanings obtained by researchers are subject to analysis. In this respect, it is significant that within the framework of postmodernism, a definition of the concept of discourse is not even given, although the term itself is used quite widely. On the whole, the postmodern approach to the analysis of political discourse cannot be considered particularly fruitful, although it is undoubted that a lot of factual material is being analyzed within this direction, the reference to which is of undoubted interest for further research.

Literature

Ilyin M.V. Rhythms and scale of changes: on the concepts of "process", "change" and "development" in political science // Polis. 1993. No. 2.

Political Science Course: Textbook. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M., 2002.

Foundations of Political Science. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Part 2. - M., 1995.

Political process: theoretical questions. - M., 1994.

Political process: main aspects and methods of analysis: Collection of educational materials / Ed. Meleshkina E.Yu. - M., 2001.

Political Science for Lawyers: A Course of Lectures. / Edited by N.I. Matuzov and A.V. Malko. - M., 1999.

Political science. Lecture course. / Ed. M.N. Marchenko. - M., 2000.

Political science. Textbook for universities / Edited by M.A. Vasilik. - M., 1999.

Political science. Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993.

Soloviev A.I. Political Science: Political Theory, Political Technologies: A Textbook for University Students. - M., 2001.

Shutov A.Yu. Political process. - M., 1994.

Having studied the material of this chapter, the bachelor must:

know

• definitions of the concepts "political process", "development", "change", "sustainability", "stability";
• the main subjects of the modern political process;
• structure and classification of political processes;
• characteristic features of the political process in transitional societies;

be able to

• to correctly determine the vector of development of the world political process;
• substantiate the contradictions in the political process of modern Russia reasonably;

own

Methodology for determining the main trends in the political process.

The concept of "political process" and its interpretation in domestic and foreign political science

The global economic crisis has seriously affected the processes of democratization, forcing politicians and academics to pay attention to the quality of democracy in different regions of the world. A special place in modern political science studies is occupied by the study of transition processes, deep internal political transformations in the countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, successes and failures on the path of democracy, the state of political governance, the ability of states to carry out political reforms, and political leaders - to make competent decisions. All this is aimed at improving the current political processes.

"Political process" - one of the main categories of modern political science, reflecting changes in the political life of society, primarily in the activities of public authorities and state institutions to achieve universal sustainable development.

The French thinker O. Comte characterizing society, he pointed out that society is characterized by two states - dynamic and static. Politics as a social phenomenon is also a unity of dynamics and statics. Dynamics is expressed in the categories "change" and "development", and statics - "stability" and "sustainability".

Dynamics political phenomena involves movement, mobility of political systems, active participation in politics of individuals, social groups and organizations. In this case, the accumulation of new signs and properties occurs, the movement can be carried out in one or in different directions.

Statics means the relative stability of political systems, existing relations within and outside these systems, the distribution of political roles among political actors.

Political processes are a dynamic side of politics, presented in the form of system-non-systemic changes, the source of which is the activities of people who seek to realize their needs and interests in these processes.

The complexity of political processes is reflected in the many definitions of this phenomenon.

They are considered as a property of political systems and their individual elements, as their functioning and development, the interaction of political subjects, the totality of these interactions that ensure a certain state of the system and political order. In this case, the concept of "political process" is interpreted either broadly - as the entire political life of society (a kaleidoscope of events, actions and oppositions within the political system of society, the activities of ordinary politicians, leaders, elites), or narrowly - as the functioning of political systems.

From the point of view of systems theory and structural-functional approach , the political process is one of the self-structuring mechanisms political system, as well as the political socialization of people through their active participation in the political life of society, including in decision-making processes.

According to the systemic approach, the political process becomes a system when it is composed of stable elements, the interaction and functions of which become stable. This is due to the hierarchical arrangement of its elements and the presence of basic elements that hold this hierarchy together. Such a basic element in the political process is the state, to which society delegates the powers to manage and regulate public relations and which has the appropriate financial, political, legal and spiritual resources for this.

American scientists Gabriel Almond and J. Bingham Powell identified internal interactions in the political system, and their compatriot David Easton - a multitude of external interactions, which gave grounds to represent the political process as the functioning of political systems, ensuring their dynamic balance with society.

For G. Almond and J. Powell, the functions of the political process are the functions of political systems: articulation and aggregation of the interests of subjects, the development and implementation of a political course, and the issuance of court decisions.

D. Easton viewed the political process as functioning of the political system by transforming information coming from the controlled environment. At the same time, he pointed out, the interaction of the formed political system with the external environment is ensured, the behavior of political subjects is coordinated, the withdrawal of resources from the environment, their distribution and response to signals from the external environment, which is implemented through the actions of the authorities. By making decisions that meet the requirements of the external environment and available resources, political power contributes to the effective functioning of the political system, its relative stabilization.

From the standpoint of a communicative approach the political process is the process of directing and coordinating human efforts to achieve specific goals. German political scientist and sociologist Karl Deutsch wrote that the political process is full-scale and prompt exchange of information between all participants in political life , the transfer of politically significant information both within the political system itself and between the political and social systems. Technologically, this process is provided by the media, meetings of political leaders, actions of parties, social and political associations, pressure groups, etc.

From the standpoint of the institutional approach the political process is seen as formation and functioning of political institutions , in the course of which the political process becomes constitutional and unconstitutional, controlled and uncontrolled, rational and irrational. American economist Douglas North characterizes the institution as the rules to the observance of which imperious coercion mobilizes groups and society as a whole. These rules are fixed in the organizations, which appear to D. North in the form of players - groups of people observing the set goals. Distinguish between formal and informal institutions ("informal practices"). Examples of formal institutions are party factions in parliament, agreements between party leaders on the formation of government coalitions or joint actions in parliament, procedural rules, etc. Informal institutions include not formalized organizationally, but more or less stable associations of deputies, political movements, political networks based on coordinated interaction and the exchange of resources of interested parties, backroom deals in parliament.

In the XX century. the strong influence of destructive factors on all spheres of social life began to be revealed. The destruction of traditional social and political structures began, which in the previous periods of human history had a more or less stable character, as well as the political processes that shape it. This was noticed by representatives of the philosophy of postmodernism, as well as by the Russian philosopher A.S. Panarin.

As a social phenomenon, the political process is subject to economic, social, cultural, national and religious influences that determine the nature of the political process, its development in time and space.

Being inherently political changes, political processes have certain pace , rhythm , configuration, sequence of its implementation ... Signals coming from the external environment, in the form of social requirements, the degree of satisfaction of which is different in different societies and at different stages of their development, create tension in the process, the resolution of which is possible in the form of an increase in the effectiveness of a power decision under the influence of pressure on the government, as well as a change in the power subject. or a change in the type of government.

In general, the concept of "political process" covers the spatio-temporal changes taking place in the political life of society, the possibility of renewal and movement from one stage of development to another, the functioning of political systems, interactions inside and outside political systems, the formation, development and functioning of political institutions, distribution and the redistribution of the roles of political actors, the dynamics of norms and values, a change in the quality of political actors, their activity, political professionalism.

The political process, which results in the formation of a political system, is also a movement within this system and its interaction with the external (public) environment, the functioning of the system's elements. At the same time, at different stages of development, it includes non-systemic and non-institutional political phenomena.

Political process - is the aggregate activity of social communities, public organizations and groups of individuals pursuing certain political goals. In a narrow sense - the activities of social actors to implement political decisions.

Political process is deployed in each country within the political system of society, as well as on regional and global scales. In society, it is carried out at the state level, in administrative-territorial regions, in the city and village. In addition, it operates within various nations, classes, socio-demographic groups, political parties and social movements. Thus, the political process reveals superficial or deep changes in the political system, characterizes its transition from one state to another. Therefore, in general, the political process in relation to the political system reveals movement, dynamics, evolution, change in time and space.

The main stages of the political process express the dynamics of the development of the political system, starting with its constitution and subsequent reform. Its main content is related to the preparation, adoption and execution at the appropriate level, the implementation of political and managerial decisions, their necessary correction, social and other control in the course of practical implementation.

The process of making political decisions makes it possible to identify in the content of the political process the structural links that reveal its internal structure and nature:

* representation of political interests of groups and citizens to institutions that make political decisions;
* development and adoption of political decisions;
* implementation of political decisions.

The political process is inherently intertwined and interconnected:

* revolutionary and reformatory principles;
* conscious, ordered and spontaneous, spontaneous actions of the masses;
* upward and downward development trends.

Individuals and social groups within a particular political system are not equally involved in the political process. Some are indifferent to politics, others participate in it from time to time, and still others are passionate about political struggle. Even among those who play an active role in political events, only a few are recklessly seeking power.

The following groups can be distinguished according to the degree of increase in the activity of participation in the political process: 1) an apolitical group, 2) those who vote in elections, 3) those participating in the activities of political parties and other political organizations and their campaigns, 4) seekers of political careers and political leaders.

Typology of the political process

According to the objects of political influence, political processes are subdivided into foreign and domestic ones. Foreign policy regulates the relationship of the state with other subjects of foreign policy. The content of internal political processes varies significantly in many countries. It depends on the forms of government and forms of state structure of specific states, the existing democratic or non-democratic political regimes there, the qualities of the ruling elite and other factors. The basis of the internal political process of any country is the ratio of socio-economic structures, the prevailing social structure of society, the degree of satisfaction of the population with their position.

We can talk about evolutionary and revolutionary political processes. In the revolutionary process, both peaceful and non-peaceful means, violence are used. Transformations are carried out in a relatively short time, they are often landslide in nature and do not always achieve the results they were designed for.

The basis of evolutionary development is the legitimacy of the authorities, common sociocultural values \u200b\u200bof the elite and the masses, the ethics of consent, the presence of constructive opposition.

From the point of view of the publicity of the exercise by the ruling circles of their powers, decision-making, open and hidden (shadow) political processes are distinguished.

In an open political process, the interests of groups and citizens are revealed in the programs of parties and movements, in voting in elections, through discussion of problems in the media, through contacts of citizens with government institutions, through taking into account public opinion. This practice has developed in democratic states.

Shadow, hidden political structures are located at the highest and middle levels of government. We are talking about the hidden actions of state institutions, secret documents, orders, the existence of bodies with secret functions (security bodies) and fully conspiratorial institutions (intelligence, counterintelligence, etc.). Illegal activities and corruption of officials and authorities may occur. Under certain conditions, illegal (shadow) structures of a non-political nature are formed (parallel economy, black market, organizations of the underworld, mafias and mafia corporations of various kinds). They tend to merge with legal state structures and can have a serious impact on them, up to latent participation in the political life of certain regions. They send their representatives to deputies, to positions in the state apparatus, etc.

Such a situation may arise if the state transfers power functions to its separate structural units, for example, the bodies of political investigation, secret police, and party formations. This was the case in the USSR in the 20-50s, when the revolutionary tribunals, "troikas", state security agencies had power that was not controlled by the population.

From the point of view of the stability of the political system, one can speak of stable and unstable political processes. A stable process is based on a stable social structure, rising living standards of the population, and the legitimacy of the regime. Citizens support the rules of the game and trust the authorities. All participants in the political process are disposed to cooperate, search for compromise solutions, they are united by their adherence to democratic values. People are confident in their ability to influence the government, because the government takes public opinion into account in its decisions.

An unstable political process often arises in the context of a crisis of power and a loss of legitimacy. The reasons for instability can be very different: a decline in production, social conflicts, discrimination against certain social groups, their dissatisfaction with their social status, etc. Instability manifests itself in sharp fluctuations in electoral preferences, in the activity of the opposition, in criticism of the government, in policy distortions. An unstable political process is characteristic of many CIS countries, where instability seems to be becoming chronic.